Barack Fuzzies Up On Iran

Kyle-Anne Shiver & Lee Cary
As it pertains to his position on Iran, will the real Barack Obama please stand up!

Thanks to Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light , and to Clarice Freeman, for American Thinker readers, for bringing to our attention a Chicago Tribune article entitled "Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran," written by David Mendell, September 24, 2004, now available for a small fee through the Tribune's archives.

The original article quoted a politician who had with a worldview back then that is considerably at odds with the moveon.org folks who endorse him now.

What he called for in September 2004 is exactly what happened.

"Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions." 

Three-and-a-half years later, on Monday, March 2, 2008, the U.N. passed yet another resolution, their third, imposing economic sanctions on Iran for refusing to stop enriching uranium.  

Back in 2004, Obama told the Tribune,

"But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

He was correct, then.  But now, he's a different Obama. In his campaign document concerning U.S. policy toward Iran, his position on Iran has changed. He acknowledges the threat Iran poses, but then accuses the Bush administration of issuing "veiled threats."  Back in 2004, he told the Tribune,

"[Concerning a response to Iran's effort to gain nuclear capabilities] missile strikes might be a viable option."

That's not a threat?

Today, his solution is "new and robust American leadership" (beware of the word "robust" because it isn't) that executes "tough and sustained diplomacy backed by real pressure." (The intensifier "real" really carries no real, robust meaning.) His campaign document reads:

It's time to rally the region and the world to our side. And it's time to deliver a direct message to Tehran...You can give up your nuclear ambitions and support for terror and rejoin the community of nations.  Or you will face further isolation including much tighter sanction."
That's not a threat - albeit hollow to the Mullahs?

Obama argues that "we haven't even tried direct diplomacy."  This aligns with his oft repeated promise that he would talk directly to our enemies.  We've seen this foreign policy practiced before in the face of tyranny.  And, we know the consequences.

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators."  Neville Chamberlain

Winston Churchill's take on Chamberlain works for Obama.

"Neville Chamberlain looked at foreign affairs through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe."


As it pertains to his position on Iran, will the real Barack Obama please stand up!

Thanks to Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light , and to Clarice Freeman, for American Thinker readers, for bringing to our attention a Chicago Tribune article entitled "Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran," written by David Mendell, September 24, 2004, now available for a small fee through the Tribune's archives.

The original article quoted a politician who had with a worldview back then that is considerably at odds with the moveon.org folks who endorse him now.

What he called for in September 2004 is exactly what happened.

"Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions." 

Three-and-a-half years later, on Monday, March 2, 2008, the U.N. passed yet another resolution, their third, imposing economic sanctions on Iran for refusing to stop enriching uranium.  

Back in 2004, Obama told the Tribune,

"But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

He was correct, then.  But now, he's a different Obama. In his campaign document concerning U.S. policy toward Iran, his position on Iran has changed. He acknowledges the threat Iran poses, but then accuses the Bush administration of issuing "veiled threats."  Back in 2004, he told the Tribune,

"[Concerning a response to Iran's effort to gain nuclear capabilities] missile strikes might be a viable option."

That's not a threat?

Today, his solution is "new and robust American leadership" (beware of the word "robust" because it isn't) that executes "tough and sustained diplomacy backed by real pressure." (The intensifier "real" really carries no real, robust meaning.) His campaign document reads:

It's time to rally the region and the world to our side. And it's time to deliver a direct message to Tehran...You can give up your nuclear ambitions and support for terror and rejoin the community of nations.  Or you will face further isolation including much tighter sanction."
That's not a threat - albeit hollow to the Mullahs?

Obama argues that "we haven't even tried direct diplomacy."  This aligns with his oft repeated promise that he would talk directly to our enemies.  We've seen this foreign policy practiced before in the face of tyranny.  And, we know the consequences.

"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators."  Neville Chamberlain

Winston Churchill's take on Chamberlain works for Obama.

"Neville Chamberlain looked at foreign affairs through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe."